Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Golden has been here so much that I have almost begun to think of him as part of the committee. That is probably what happened.

I move amendment 174.

I did not intend to chide Mr Simpson; I intended to answer him. If there was any material difference as a result of the amendment, I would have brought that to the committee. There is not and, therefore, I did not have the information in front of me. I hope that the committee is now satisfied that it has all the information that it needs to make a judgment on the amendment.

I will come to that, but I would rather address the issue at the end of my response to Mr Golden. I hope that Mr Lumsden is happy with that.

Recycling co-design is an example of our approach. Local government will give explicit consideration to future infrastructure requirements to support the delivery of high-performing services, alongside there being an assessment of the potential for multiple local authorities to collaborate or partner and an assessment of the potential efficiencies and economies of scale that are on offer, which is relevant in relation to attracting further inward investment. That is part of the recycling co-design process, which is fundamental and runs throughout the bill. That will complement the development of Scotland’s residual waste plan to 2045, which will investigate and make recommendations on Scotland’s long-term infrastructure requirements to manage waste. There are processes and collaboration in place that address the issue directly.

If Mr Golden does not press his amendment today, I would be happy to work with him to consider the merits of publishing a report such as the one that he mentions. I am not yet convinced that a provision for that has to be included in the bill, but I am willing to consider whether such a report is required as part of our broader work on the circular economy.

It is possible that Mr Golden missed what I said about an assessment of the potential for multiple local authorities to collaborate or partner, in order to avoid the scenario that he described.

As Mr Lumsden has been in the Parliament for a few years now, he will know that a committee can have any deliberations that it wants on what evidence to take on an SSI and that the Government will go out to consultation. Mention of business impacts has been made a number of times now, and I point out that it is our duty to consult with businesses ahead of any changes that would be made. Any speculative throwing around of examples—say, chip papers—does the process a bit of a disservice, as there would be an opportunity for scrutiny as well as consultation. After all, we would not want to do anything disproportionate.

We will consider carefully the policy interactions and implications of any future deposit return schemes and charges for single-use items. Although we might agree in principle that any item that is subject to a deposit should not be subject to a charge, too, we do not yet know what the DRS is going to look like; we are still having discussions with the UK Government and other devolved Governments, and at this point, it is not possible to evaluate all the future policy interactions. I cannot agree to anything that will restrict something that we might need in the future.

Amendment 25 seeks to exempt “items that are biodegradable”. Without a specified environment or time frame and a proper definition, the term “biodegradable” is problematic, as it is unclear. Mr Simpson mentioned compostable and biodegradable products, but those are two very separate things. Typically, products that are referred to as biodegradable are single use, with their own set of waste management charges. The majority of materials that are found in any litter stream are, eventually, biodegradable, but we need to consider how many years those products take to degrade. Exempting biodegradable items from charges would create a significant potential loophole for suppliers to continue supplying single-use items without charging for them, which would undermine the purpose of the charge.

More important, because of that loophole, any actions that we could take to reduce the number of single-use items would not work. After all, the bill is aimed at improving recycling rates and, with regard to the waste hierarchy, at removing wasteful items from the economy, in general. Unfortunately, Mr Simpson’s amendment 25 provides a loophole, and I do not want that to happen.

Despite what Mr Simpson said in his opening comments, I am open to discussing anything that has a laudable intention. I understand why Mr Simpson has lodged his amendments, and I am happy to work with him on this matter, but I do not want to be in a situation where the use of certain language would create a loophole. Perhaps we can discuss the matter ahead of stage 3.

The initial proposed items that will be subject to regulation, should the bill be passed, will be single-use coffee cups. We know that. We would require suppliers to levy that charge—that is what the power will do—when they supply the goods to their customers. I think that it is quite clear who that would be.

On amendment 29, I note that Scottish ministers already have the power to give financial assistance to small businesses and microbusinesses—

It is the supplier of the drink in the coffee cup. That seems quite clear to me.

Mr Lumsden will be familiar with the single-use carrier bag charge. That is what is proposed here.

I will be as clear as I possibly can. With, for example, single-use coffee cups, the proposal is that when you buy a takeaway coffee in a cup—that is, at the point of sale—a charge will be applied, as with a carrier bag. The charge will be applied at the point of sale.